DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
After further review, it has been determined that claim 1 does not include allowable subject matter and has been rejected as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
For claims 1 and 9-10 the preamble of claim 1 states a driving device for driving a door lock assembly used for actuating a door of an electrical equipment, with the door lock assembly, door, and electrical equipment recited merely as an intended use, however, the body of the claim 9 contain positive recitations of the door lock assembly and claim 10 contains positive recitations of the door. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the driving device or the driving device in combination with the door lock assembly and the door. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are overcome by the present amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 20-25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 18/664,766 in view of Becchio WO 2016199056 A1 (hereinafter Becchio) and Buser et al. DE 4443849 A1 (hereinafter Buser).
In regards to claim 1, claims 21 of ‘766 teach a driving device (driving device of claim 21) for driving a door lock assembly (of claim21) used for actuating a door of an electrical equipment that comprises a door lock slider (door lock slider of claim 1), the driving device comprising: a driving gear (driving gear of claim 21) configured to rotate unidirectionally and provided with a gear teeth driving portion and a toothless portion on the periphery of the driving gear (see claim 21); a driving rack (driving rack of claim 21) configured to reciprocate along the first linear direction and the second linear direction (see claim21), wherein the driving rack is used for driving the door lock slider to move along the first linear direction (Claim 21 section “(1)”); wherein the driving gear and the driving rack are configured that: the driving rack engages the gear teeth driving portion when the driving rack drives the door lock slider to move along the first linear direction , so as to drive the door lock slider to move along the first linear direction (see claim 21); or the movement route of the driving rack corresponds to the toothless portion when the door lock slider moves along the second linear direction , so as to reduce the resistance generated when the door lock slider moves along the second linear direction (see claim 21 section “(2)”).
However, claim 21 of ‘766 does not teach wherein the door lock slider is provided with a door hook hole for accommodating a door hook at one end thereof .
Becchio teaches a similar device wherein a door lock slider (14) is provided with a door retaining element hole for accommodating a door retaining element (16) at one end thereof (see figs 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a door retaining element on ‘766’s door lock slider in order to allow for a pre-opening condition (Becchio page 7 line 30 – page 8 line 5) allowing steam to be let out during the washing cycle, allowing partial drying (Becchio page 2 lines 20-25).
Additionally, Park is silent if the latch unit is a hook. This is extremely common in the art however.
Buser teaches a similar latch unit including a hook (34) see fig 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Park’s latch unit comprise a hook in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of latching an appliance door.
In regards to claim 2, claims 21-22 of ‘766 in view of Becchio and Buser teach the driving device of claim 1, wherein the driving gear and the driving rack are configured that: the driving rack engages the gear teeth driving portion when the driving gear rotates within a first angle range, or the movement route of the driving rack corresponds to the toothless portion of the driving gear when the driving gear rotates within a second angle range (‘766: see claim 22).
In regards to claim 3, claims 21-23 of ‘766in view of Becchio and Buser teach the driving device of claim 2, wherein the driving gear and the driving rack are configured that: the driving rack moves along the first linear direction when the driving gear rotates within the first angle range, so as to drive the door lock slider to move along the first linear direction ; or the door lock slider moves along the second linear direction and drive the driving rack to move along the second linear direction when the movement route of the driving rack corresponds to the toothless portion of the driving gear (‘766: see claim 23) .
In regards to claim 4, claims 21-24, of ‘766 in view of Becchio and Buser teach the driving device of claim 3, wherein the driving gear and the driving rack are configured that: the driving gear drives the driving rack to move from a start position to an end position when the driving gear rotates within the first angle range; or the door lock slider drives the driving rack to move from the end position to the start position when the driving gear rotates within the second angle range (‘766: see claim 24).
In regards to claim 5, claims 21-25 of ‘766in view of Becchio and Buser teach the driving device of claim 4, further comprising: a driving motor (‘766: driving motor of claim 25) for driving the driving gear to rotate within the first angle range and the second angle range on a time-sharing drive basis (‘766: see claim25), wherein the driving motor is able to rotate the driving gear to the position where the toothless portion faces towards the driving rack when the driving rack is in the end position (‘766: as best understood, the end of the second angle rang would be the end position).
In regards to claim 9, claims 21 of ‘766 in view of Becchio and Buser teach the driving device of claim 1, further comprising: a bias device (‘766: bias device in claim 21) wherein the bias device is disposed inside the door lock assembly (‘766: see claim21) the door lock slider is configured to reciprocate in a first linear direction or a second linear direction along the length of the door lock slider, the movement of the door lock slider along the second linear direction is driven by the bias force provided by the bias device (‘766: bias device in claim 21, see claim 21).
In regards to claim 10, claims 1, 4, 17-19, 21, and 26 of ‘766 teach the driving device of claim 9, wherein the door comprises an open position, a closed position and one or more intermediate positions; the first linear direction of the door lock slider corresponds to the moving direction of the door from the one or more intermediate positions to the closed position; and the second linear direction of the door lock slider corresponds to the moving direction of the door from the closed position to the one or more intermediate positions, wherein the one or more intermediate positions are disposed between the open position and the closed position (as Becchio teaches the intermediate position).
In regards to claim 11, claims 21- 26 teach an electrical device , comprising the driving device in claim 1 and the door lock assembly and the door , wherein the driving device is used for driving the door lock assembly , and the door lock assembly is used for actuating the door (when modified by Becchio).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 7-8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 18/664,766 in view of Becchio and Buser and further in view of Asmann WO 2009146874 A1 (hereinafter Asmann).
In regards to claim 7, claims 21 of ‘766 in view of Becchio and Buser teach the driving device of claim 6, wherein the driving device is connected with the door lock slider via a flexible component, and pulls the door lock slider along the first linear direction through the flexible component (‘766 see claim 18).
However, ‘766 does not teach wherein the flexible component is pulling string and the pulling string is connected between one end of the driving rack and the other end of the door lock slider opposite to the door hook hole.
Asmann teaches a similar device wherein a flexible component is pulling string (10, a cable falls under the definition of a string) and the pulling string is connected to the other end of the door lock slider opposite to the door hook hole (see figs 3b and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have p’766’s flexible component be a string such as in Asman as it is a well-known, simple and strong flexible transmission element.
Further It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided the string at the other end of the door lock slider opposite to the door hook hole in order to limit undesired interference between the slider and string.
In regards to claim 8, claims 20-21 of ‘766 in view of Becchio, Buser, and Asmann teach the driving device of claim 7, further comprising: at least one stationary pulley configured to change the moving path of the pulling string (‘766: see claim 20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park KR 20160050635 A (hereinafter Park) in view of Becchio WO 2016199056 A1 (hereinafter Becchio) and Buser et al. DE 4443849 A1 (hereinafter Buser).
In regards to claim 1, Park teaches the driving device for driving a door lock assembly (at least 148) used for actuating a door of an electrical equipment that comprises a door lock slider (146), the driving device comprising: a driving gear (144) configured to rotate unidirectionally and provided with a gear teeth driving portion (portion with teeth contacting the rack see fig 7) and a toothless portion on the periphery of the driving gear (portion not contacting the rack see fig 6); a driving rack (146-1) configured to reciprocate along the first linear direction (right wrt fig 6) and the second linear direction (left wrt fig 6), wherein the driving rack is used for driving the door lock slider to move along the first linear direction (see fig 6-8); wherein the driving gear and the driving rack are configured that: the driving rack engages the gear teeth driving portion when the driving rack drives the door lock slider to move along the first linear direction , so as to drive the door lock slider to move along the first linear direction (see figs 6-8); or the movement route of the driving rack corresponds to the toothless portion when the door lock slider moves along the second linear direction (see fig 6 and para 39), so as to reduce the resistance generated when the door lock slider moves along the second linear direction (as the teeth are out of the path, reducing resistance compared to if they were).
However, Park does not teach wherein the door lock slider is provided with a door hook hole for accommodating a door hook at one end thereof. Park teaches a separate latch unit 130).
Becchio teaches a similar device wherein a door lock slider (14) is provided with a door retaining element hole for accommodating a door retaining element (16) at one end thereof (see figs 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a door retaining element on Park’s door lock slider in order to allow for a pre-opening condition (Becchio page 7 line 30 – page 8 line 5) allowing steam to be let out during the washing cycle, allowing partial drying (Becchio page 2 lines 20-25).
Additionally, Park is silent if the latch unit is a hook. This is extremely common in the art however.
Buser teaches a similar latch unit including a hook (34) see fig 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Park’s latch unit comprise a hook in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of latching an appliance door.
In regards to claim 2, Park in view of Becchio and Buser teaches the driving device of claim 1, wherein the driving gear and the driving rack are configured that: the driving rack engages the gear teeth driving portion when the driving gear rotates within a first angle range (Park: such as figs 7-8), or the movement route of the driving rack corresponds to the toothless portion of the driving gear when the driving gear rotates within a second angle range (Park: range without gear teeth touching such as between fig 8 and 9).
In regards to claim 3, Park in view of Becchio and Buser teaches the driving device of claim 2, wherein the driving gear and the driving rack are configured that: the driving rack moves along the first linear direction when the driving gear rotates within the first angle range (Park: see figs 7-8), so as to drive the door lock slider to move along the first linear direction (Park: see figs 7-8); or the door lock slider moves along the second linear direction (Park: such as in para 39) and drive the driving rack to move along the second linear direction when the movement route of the driving rack corresponds to the toothless portion of the driving gear (Park: see figs 6 and 9; note para 39).
In regards to claim 4, Park in view of Becchio and Buser teaches the driving device of claim 3, wherein the driving gear and the driving rack are configured that: the driving gear drives the driving rack to move from a start position (Park: see fig 6) to an end position (Park: see fig 9) when the driving gear rotates within the first angle range (Park: from figs 7-8); or (Park: note “or does not require both these conditions to be true) the door lock slider drives the driving rack to move from the end position to the start position when the driving gear rotates within the second angle range.
In regards to claim 5, Park in view of Becchio and Buser teaches the driving device of claim 4, further comprising: a driving motor (Park: 142) for driving the driving gear to rotate within the first angle range and the second angle range (Park: see figs 6-9), wherein the driving motor is able to rotate the driving gear to the position where the toothless portion faces towards the driving rack when the driving rack is in the end position (Park: see figs 9).
In regards to claim 9, Park in view of Becchio and Buser teaches the driving device of claim 1, further comprising: a bias device (147) wherein the bias device is disposed inside the door lock assembly (para 39), the door lock slider is configured to reciprocate in a first linear direction or a second linear direction along the length of the door lock slider (Park: see figs 6-9), the movement of the door lock slider along the second linear direction is driven by the bias force provided by the bias device (Park: para 39).
In regards to claim 10, Park in view of Becchio and Buser teaches the driving device of claim 9, wherein the door (Park: 120) comprises an open position (Park: fully open), a closed position (Park: fully closed) and one or more intermediate positions (Park: such as in fig 1); the first linear direction of the door lock slider corresponds to the moving direction of the door from the one or more intermediate positions to the closed position (Park: para 39 and fig 6); and the second linear direction of the door lock slider corresponds to the moving direction of the door from the closed position to the one or more intermediate positions (Park: see fig 2 and fig 7), wherein the one or more intermediate positions are disposed between the open position and the closed position (Park: see fig 1; not the device is a dishwasher; also note Becchio’s pre-opening condition).
In regards to claim 11, Park in view of Becchio and Buser teaches the electrical device, comprising the driving device in claim 1 and the door lock assembly and the door (Park: see fig 1), wherein the driving device is used for driving the door lock assembly, and the door lock assembly is used for actuating the door (Park: see fig 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
If the double patenting rejections are overcome claims 7-8 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights